Apple's Opening Court Statement Focuses on Samsung's Radical Shift in Phone Design

[LagunaSol]

So, do you used to talk a lot with him to know that they did that in private?

Nope. Nor do I assume what he's thinking based on a lack of public commentary.

 

[spl456]

Here is a good article.

http://www.osnews.com/story/26230/Samsung_reveals_its_pre-iPhone_concepts_10_touchscreen

One of these phones (the bottom-right one) became the Samsung F700 - a product Apple once included as an infringing product, but later withdrew once it learned Samsung created it and brought it to market before the iPhone

It extends to more than just the hardware - Samsung was also working on interfaces that looks remarkably like iOS (actually, that look remarkably like PalmOS) - in the summer and fall of 2006. Again, before the iPhone was released.

 

[boronathan]

Here is a good article.

http://www.osnews.com/story/26230/Samsung_reveals_its_pre-iPhone_concepts_10_touchscreen

Image

Thanks for this. Good article

 

[Sora]

Microsoft never innovated, and they did not fail.

1. You either don't know what the word innovation means.

or

2. You fail to understand what concepts the word "innovation" embodies

See smoledman's post.

I consider Microsoft as a huge innovator.

NT Kernel, Windows 7 jumplists, MinWin, Metro, Windows Phone, Office 365, Azure, XBox, Ergonomic natural keyboards, Arc Mouse.

On and on..

 

[KnightWRX]

Thanks for this. Good article

Posted it on page 1. Funny it got ignored all this time uh ?

 

[LagunaSol]

Read his biography and you'll see that he didn't go ballistic over Android until 2010, as I stated.

Publicly. Common sense dictates that a CEO can't be pleased when a company headed by someone who sits on his board is developing a directly-competing product.

Given that CEO was Steve Jobs ( ) and that Google's "competing product" was actually a direct clone of Apple's own and would be given away for free ( ) to any 2-bit idea-less OEM that wanted it, it's a virtual certainty that Jobs was not happy about this at all. Well before 2010.

 

[GS17]

Yeah, they stole Apple's idea to steal LG's idea. The nerve!

Hahaha epic comment is epic

 

[boronathan]

Posted it on page 1. Funny it got ignored all this time uh ?

Lol I'm sorry...it's tapatalk takes me to the last page automatically! Either way very informative and thanks for the link!

 

[samcraig]

Publicly. Common sense dictates that a CEO can't be pleased when a company headed by someone who sits on his board is developing a directly-competing product.

Given that CEO was Steve Jobs ( ) and that Google's "competing product" was actually a direct clone of Apple's own and would be given away for free ( ) to any 2-bit idea-less OEM that wanted it, it's a virtual certainty that Jobs was not happy about this at all. Well before 2010.

Sorry - Jobs wasn't exactly known for having restraint.

Can you list the ways Android is a clone of iOS?

Do you realize this case has nothing to do with iOS or Android - but with trade dress?

You never fail to disappoint.

 

[Judas1]

Publicly. Common sense dictates that a CEO can't be pleased when a company headed by someone who sits on his board is developing a directly-competing product.

Given that CEO was Steve Jobs ( ) and that Google's "competing product" was actually a direct clone of Apple's own and would be given away for free ( ) to any 2-bit idea-less OEM that wanted it, it's a virtual certainty that Jobs was not happy about this at all. Well before 2010.

When are you going to get that having an opinion based on public record is logical and reasonable? Basing it on a guess of what Jobs would have liked or not like, not logical or reasonable.

 

[prezasti]

Well, things are heating up outside of court now and someone on the Samsung's Legal team may be in a little bit of trouble. http://allthingsd.com/20120731/samsung-goes-public-with-excluded-evidence-to-undercut-apples-design-claims/?mod=tweet#slideshow-1-12

Samsung leaked evidence that was excluded in the case by the Judge and now the Judge is possibly holding one or more of Samsung's legal team in contempt for making the evidence public before the Trial is over.

From allthingsd.com, Apple’s legal team was quick to take issue with Samsung’s release of evidence excluded from the trial, saying the action was contemptible. Judge Koh was none to pleased with the move herself, calling for an immediate meeting with Quinn.

Quote from Koh, “Tell Mr. Quinn I’d like to see him today,” Koh said. “I want to know who drafted the press release, who authorized it from the legal team.”

You would think Samsung's legal team would be a little more careful about leaks like this while the Trial is still in session. We'll see what happens.

 

[golf1410]

I have a feeling that Samsung is going to lost in US court. The political game may involve. You know, US company VS Korean Company in US court. This results reservation money within US country. I just view it this way.

 

[samcraig]

Ok that's fine. I hope you understand what i mean. I'm not calling you a liar but there really is no reason for anyone here to take what you say at face value when theres no proof.

Either way, no one can deny that there was a sudden influx of these phones with the laundry list of characters that were described after the iPhone.

It just seems a little bit too convenient to just be coincidental imo.

Meant to respond to this. I didn't take it as you calling me a liar. And you could feel that way if you wanted. I can't offer proof other than my "testimony" because a) I was under an NDA and b) not even sure I have any of the materials/presentations I worked on that far back. If I did - they would be archived quite well LOL

BTW - this is an interesting read.

http://www.cnet.com/8301-17918_1-20091839-85/the-birth-of-a-cell-phone/

People will cull what they want out of it. The cycle time has gotten shorter from when I worked in the industry. Now they say it can take between 6-12 months for a new phone. I'm not sure if that means a BRAND new phone from thin air - or something a manufacturer had already technically started but is then put in "go mode" with a carrier.

When I was in the industry - which predates the iPhone. It was easily 2-3 times as long. I saw pipelines of products/iterations about 2-3 years out. The article brings up things I've already mentioned which can greatly affect delivery such as feature points with carriers. It's even worse when you are trying to time a launch date of one phone on multiple carriers and each carrier is making demands for tweaks not only to the OS - but also to technical requirements. And some of the Tech requirements in turn change how the OS needs to be tweaked.

You have sales reps, designers, engineers, carriers, marketing, etc - all trying to reach agreements on a phone. It's truly amazing (to me) that some phones even see the light of day having seen what goes on behind the scenes.

Anyway - that's been my experience boiled down...

 

[KnightWRX]

When are you going to get that having an opinion based on public record is logical and reasonable? Basing it on a guess of what Jobs would have liked or not like, not logical or reasonable.

Jesus, let's put this Eric Schmidt business to rest :

Of course, the history of it tells quite the different tale :

August 2005 : Google Buys Android for Its Mobile Arsenal

In a 2003 interview with BusinessWeek, just two months before incorporating Android, Rubin said there was tremendous potential in developing smarter mobile devices that are more aware of its owner's location and preferences. "If people are smart, that information starts getting aggregated into consumer products," said Rubin.

August 2006 : Google CEO Dr. Eric Schmidt Joins Apple’s Board of Directors

“Eric is obviously doing a terrific job as CEO of Google, and we look forward to his contributions as a member of Apple’s board of directors,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “Like Apple, Google is very focused on innovation and we think Eric’s insights and experience will be very valuable in helping to guide Apple in the years ahead.”

August 2009 : Dr. Eric Schmidt Resigns from Apple’s Board of Directors

“Eric has been an excellent Board member for Apple, investing his valuable time, talent, passion and wisdom to help make Apple successful,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “Unfortunately, as Google enters more of Apple’s core businesses, with Android and now Chrome OS, Eric’s effectiveness as an Apple Board member will be significantly diminished, since he will have to recuse himself from even larger portions of our meetings due to potential conflicts of interest. Therefore, we have mutually decided that now is the right time for Eric to resign his position on Apple’s Board.”

The bolded part is my emphasis. Note how Steve Jobs himself says that Eric has been removing himself from strategic meetings involving potential conflicts of interest. Eric wasn't aware of Apple's iOS/iPhone plans since he wasn't in those meetings due to Android.

Apple knew full well ahead of time that Google was getting into the mobile game. To think otherwise is really to think very little of Apple's board, including then CEO Steve Jobs.

Notice how positive the whole thing is for Apple when Eric joins and when he resigns. The whole negativity and hostility is mostly community bred. Some people are "too loyal" to Apple, reaching levels even the company doesn't in some made up conflicts.

I'll emphasize this paragraph of mine :

Apple knew full well ahead of time that Google was getting into the mobile game. To think otherwise is really to think very little of Apple's board, including then CEO Steve Jobs.


So in essence, anyone claiming "Eric stole from Apple!" is actually an Apple hater. They are very directly calling Apple and its board of directors and Steve Jobs himself a bunch of drooling idiots.

 

[GS17]

But I think that's the point being made by Apple, whether we agree with it or not. No one, except for perhaps LG, had designed models illustrating a touchscreen device with no keyboard prior to the iPhone. Now the reply comes "but that's where devices were going", and in retrospect that's easy to claim, but if that's really where things were going then you'd think there would be more evidence of designs indicating this is where things were going. I remember vividly everyone thinking the iPhone would be a huge failure precisely because it had no keyboard, so it wasn't at all obvious at the time that a touchscreen phone without a keyboard was the direction of where things were headed. And the LG Prada, which was the only other model without a keyboard, was a failure. Good thing the industry didn't rely on LG on that one. I'd hate to appeal to Balmer in any context, but he tends to represent the "party lines" of the industry and you will surely recall his remarks in this context.

IMO opinion even if they only sold one LG Prada and that was the only phone without keyboard before the iPhone it still makes them first with that kind of design, no apple

 

[ganymedes13]

And you're missing the point that several manufacturers already had full touch screen phones in their pipeline prior and concurrent to the iPhone. Forget Android. It's barely relevant to this case because this case is about trade dress - not OS.

And this case is against Samsung because only Samsung, to date, poses the biggest threat to Apple's sales.

My posts had nothing to do with patents or lawsuits. KnightWRX said that Eric Schmidt did not give Google engineers the iPhone before it was released. I wanted to prove that there was much of a leap that he did. In fact it was more of the equivalent of long stride over a pool of tepid water in the pouring rain.

What I say has nothing to do with Samsung in particular.

 

[samcraig]

Jesus, let's put this Eric Schmidt business to rest :




I'll emphasize this paragraph of mine :

Apple knew full well ahead of time that Google was getting into the mobile game. To think otherwise is really to think very little of Apple's board, including then CEO Steve Jobs.


So in essence, anyone claiming "Eric stole from Apple!" is actually an Apple hater. They are very directly calling Apple and its board of directors and Steve Jobs himself a bunch of drooling idiots.

Oh no. Do you realize you posted a quote from Steve Jobs that states that Google is INNOVATIVE? How could Steve LIE like that?!

My posts had nothing to do with patents or lawsuits. KnightWRX said that Eric Schmidt did not give Google engineers the iPhone before it was released. I wanted to prove that there was much of a leap that he did. In fact it was more of the equivalent of long stride over a pool of tepid water in the pouring rain.


What I say has nothing to do with Samsung in particular.

Unfortunately for you - you can't prove he did. End of story.

 

[Rennir]

Where are the keyboards in those graphics? And how many keyboards are on the post-iPhone models? The images from both sides are severely lacking and manipulated. I'd like to see an honest graphic showing the phones from all angles pre iPhone and post iPhone.

Too many phones to list most likely. Just think of all the Android phones being released the past couple of years.

 

[schaffinosx]

Excellent phones are being made, and both companies are making massive amounts of money. Not sure why anyone's arguing.

 

[Rennir]

It's also interesting to note that Apple moved to (and succeeded in) blocking the evidence of the iPhone 4 form factor being influenced by Sony's design principles. While Allthingsd does say that Samsung found those about the discovery period, and therefore Apple didn't have enough time to form a rebuttal, I wonder if they thought that piece of evidence would be enough to persuade most jurors.

 

[KnightWRX]

My posts had nothing to do with patents or lawsuits. KnightWRX said that Eric Schmidt did not give Google engineers the iPhone before it was released. I wanted to prove that there was much of a leap that he did. In fact it was more of the equivalent of long stride over a pool of tepid water in the pouring rain.

You have offered no evidence of such. Only heresay.

Of course some Google engineers saw the iPhone prior to launch, that's a given. Google had a lot to do with the launch of the iPhone, providing Youtube, Maps and Search for the device. Eric even participated in the keynote :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4OEsI0Sc_s - 50:00 in.

Now, that doesn't mean that Eric stole anything, gave anything to the Android team or that Google ripped off Apple's stuff in the iPhone. In fact, again, Apple knew of Android in 2006 when Eric came on board, Apple saw Android in 2008 when it shipped and never alluded to any IP infringement there :

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/the-passion-of-steve-jobs/

“Having created a phone, it’s a lot harder than it looks,” he said. “We’ll see how good their software is and we’ll see how consumers like it and how quickly it is adopted.” In seeking not to get locked out of the mobile phone world, “I actually think Google has achieved their goal without Android, and I now think Android hurts them more than it helps them. It’s just going to divide them and people who want to be their partners.”

Quite the contrary, Steve sounded quite disappointed that Google decided to go at it on their own rather than simply assisting in iOS's success.

Now, please understand the difference between fiction and facts. Facts are out there, I have provided them. Fiction is you trying to make up fairy tales and push them as fact without a shred of evidence beyond "opinions".

 

[Rogifan]

Well, things are heating up outside of court now and someone on the Samsung's Legal team may be in a little bit of trouble. http://allthingsd.com/20120731/samsung-goes-public-with-excluded-evidence-to-undercut-apples-design-claims/?mod=tweet#slideshow-1-12

Samsung leaked evidence that was excluded in the case by the Judge and now the Judge is possibly holding one or more of Samsung's legal team in contempt for making the evidence public before the Trial is over.



You would think Samsung's legal team would be a little more careful about leaks like this while the Trial is still in session. We'll see what happens.

It's obvious why Samsung is doing this. They figure if they can't win in court then they'll try to win in the court of public opinion. But if this suit is as flawed as so many claim it is Samsung should have an easy time winning the case no? I mean it's plain as day that neither of these phones look like the iPhone/iPhone 3G. And it's so obvious this is the only possible way to design a phone. Because the Galaxy S III, Lumia and One X look just like this.

 

[KnightWRX]

It's obvious why Samsung is doing this. They figure if they can't win in court then they'll try to win in the court of public opinion. But if this suit is as flawed as so many claim it is Samsung should have an easy time winning the case no?

But if this suit is as perfect as so many claim it is Apple should have an easy time winning the case no ?

Works both ways. That's why there are lawyers and judges. Because nothing is obvious in IP law. And your pics are flawed. For one thing, they aren't to scale. The devices are not the same size at all. Apple was called on that particular tidbit of photoshopping evidence :

http://www.osnews.com/story/25049/Samsung_Accuses_Apple_of_Photoshopping_Evidencen

And they are quite clearly different from the sides and back, and the chrome trim is obviously a very different color. Not to mention the "slap me in the face and call me silly SAMSUNG" logo on the top of the phone...

 

[!¡ V ¡!]

"As we all know it is easier to copy than to innovate," he told the court. "Apple had already taken the risks."

How well is that argument going to hold up when it's easy to show how Apple copied and stood on the backs of several companies to produce the iPhone and other devices.

p.s. you can copy AND innovate at the same time. Because unless Samsung actually produced an iPhone - it's not a 1:1 copy

You do realize that companies such as Apple, Microsoft, Intel, Samsung, LG, etc., have investment stake in smaller companies and technology. Though you might not hear of them, these companies or they members sit on BoD.

Apple or Samsung for that matter could have had a member of they BoD sit on another BoD of a smaller developing company, with side investments and licensing deals. Everyone is connected to some degree.

Google sitting on Apple BoD and "re-inventing" the original Android OS (resembled BB OS, Palm OS) to what the iOS looks like could possible a conflict of interest.

The questions is if Apple has a patent on the design and utility and can prove it, Samsung is SOL.

 

[kdarling]

Publicly. Common sense dictates that a CEO can't be pleased when a company headed by someone who sits on his board is developing a directly-competing product.

Look, if you don't have his biography, just say so.

Otherwise it would be clear as a bell to you that he did not go crazy over Android until 2010, as the book talks about his non-public actions and feelings over that time period.

For example, where do you think Jobs' infamous "I'll go thermonuclear" comment came from? Hint: it was not a public comment. It came from the private interviews for the biography.

The upshot is: all the available evidence is that Jobs did not get upset until Google enabled multi-touch in early 2010. There is zero evidence that he thought that Schmidt stole anything while on the Apple board.